masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Gameplay notes sections
We used to have notes at the bottom of all slow firing pistols reminding people not to use them on Priority: Mars. However these have since been deemed 'unnecessary because its repeating information'. However I do not see repetition of information as an innately bad thing. My proposal is however that we make sections on relevant pages that repeat information so that someone reading the wiki is more likely to find it. Why have these? Let me explain this with an example. Say someone (not an editor) is trying to find information on all the shops on Illium in Mass Effect 2, Are they more likely to start by searching for shops or for Illium? Well its difficult to tell, but should we be leaving those who start at Illium with a dead end? I think not. So these sections are there to share gameplay relevant information across pages that people are likely to try looking for it on or more likely to see it if it is there (such as the slow pistols mentioned earlier). How these will work: These sections will only contain information that can be found elsewhere on the wiki (as a measure to help limit their size). They will be written with the intention to convey a concise but informative version of points deemed important in terms of gameplay. Each point should include links to the relevant pages in the wiki with a more detailed version of the information. What would these include? bugs or bad scripting that, when in conjunction with the topic of the page, create a situation that heavily impedes progression through an section of gameplay (pistols on mars off the top of my head). others would be: names of shops and people to converse with in order to start or end a quest or assignment if it is not obvious. Not a comprehensive list of everything in an area that can be interacted with. Voting Voting will close on 1st February For #Midnightpiranha (talk) 23:45, January 25, 2013 (UTC) #Lksdjf (talk) 00:46, January 26, 2013 (UTC) #LilyheartsLiara (talk) 00:50, January 26, 2013 (UTC) #--Zxjkl (talk) 01:10, January 26, 2013 (UTC) #TheUnknown285 (talk) 01:45, January 26, 2013 (UTC) #--RandomGuy96 (talk) 23:37, February 1, 2013 (UTC) Neutral #--Legionwrex (talk) 00:44, January 26, 2013 (UTC) Against #Lancer1289 (talk) 18:26, January 26, 2013 (UTC) Discussion I don't see a need for this. If it comes up, then it comes up but to have a blanket policy is just completely needless. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:26, January 26, 2013 (UTC) I am pushing for a blanket policy because there was a policy (or other general reason) that caused the removal of what had been there before that worked similarly to this. The best way to create a suitable exception to those policies is to set out a new one which the precise definition of what it covers can be discussed. As for "If it comes up," consider this as it coming up. Midnightpiranha (talk) 23:19, January 30, 2013 (UTC) :This needs to be a case by case basis because some things are largely irrelevant to the article itself. If there is something, then it should be mentioned, but this will do nothing but clutter articles with what ultimately will end up being redundant, pointless, needlessly repetitive, and in cases, irrelevant information. We cannot continue to have blanket policies because they cause more problems than they solve. The fact you took no input before doing this shows that you do not understand the ramifications of this. Lancer1289 (talk) 16:46, January 31, 2013 (UTC) ::This information is; ::Repetitive? Yes (that was specified in the description as being one of the necessities so these sections could be made as consise as possible). ::Redundant? No (see below). ::Clutter up articles? Well if its in a properly set out section, it becomes actually pretty well ordered. ::Irrelevent to the article? Depends on the exact wording of what this can and cannot cover and what pages this can and cannot be used on. For what its worth I would like to discuss these finer details with you and the rest of the (active) admin team. ::From what you have said in the past it seems as if you see repetitive and redundant as exactly the same. This can often be the case, however, there are troves of information that is stashed away on pages that are rarely frequented that relate to pages that are seen more often. In these cases the repetition of information has the purpose of making that information more widely available. Hence, by having a useful purpose, it is not redundant. Midnightpiranha (talk) 17:49, January 31, 2013 (UTC)